Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
Sigit Kuncoro
This dissertation is submitted in partial fulfilment for the requirements for the Unitec degree
of Master of International Communication.
CANDIDATE’S DECLARATION
I confirm that:
• This dissertation represents my own work;
• The contribution of supervisors and others to this work was consistent with the Unitec
Code of Supervision.
• Research for this work has been conducted in accordance with the Unitec Research Ethics
Committee Policy and Procedures, and has fulfilled any requirements set for this project
by the Unitec Research Ethics Committee.
SUPERVISORS’ DECLARATION
I confirm that, to the best of my knowledge:
• The research was carried out and the work prepared under my direct supervision;
• Except where otherwise approved by the Board of Postgraduate Studies of Unitec, the
research was conducted in accordance with the degree regulations and programme rules;
• The contribution made to the research by me, by other members of the supervisory team,
by other members of staff of Unitec and by others was consistent with the Unitec Code of
Supervision.
The process of learning always requires sacrifices and values a hard work. I
enjoy this journey as I believe that all this process benefits me for my future life. My
interest in leadership theme has brought me to the exploration of this area deeper,
although the process was not free from the obstacles. Thanks to God, my Saviour! He
always makes a way for me. He shows me what directions I should take. “Come to
me, all you who are weary and burdened, and I will give you rest” (Matthew 11:28).
I would like to thank my supervisor Dr. Linda Beamer and Dr. Simon Peel
this dissertation. I do not think I would be able to complete this project without their
with her useful advice. Also, I appreciate the contribution of Unitec Library with its
excellent interloan and other services for providing me with the unlimited valuable
resources.
who always encourage and support me. You all make me confident to go through this
path. Last but not least, thank to all of you my friends in Auckland, who always cheer
me up whenever I am down. I also like your voice, Michael Bublé! Beyond that, I
iii
Table of Contents
Chapter Page
1 Introduction …………………………………………………………………………..
1
Background …………………………………………………………………..
1
Aim of the Project …………...……………………………………… 2
Rationale ……………………………………………………………. 2
Research Questions …………………………………………………….. 3
Methodology ……………………………………………………………. 5
Methods of Data Collection and Analysis …………………………………5
Outline of the Dissertation ………………………………………………. 6
3 Culture ……………………………………………………………………….28
Cultural Dimensions ……………………………………………………..29
Global Leadership and Organisational Behaviour Effectiveness
(GLOBE) Study …………………………………………………………37
The Cultural Context of Communication ………………………………….
44
iv
Chapter Page
v
List of Tables and Figures
Page
Page
vi
Abstract
This extended literature review investigates the relationship between culture and
Specifically, this project focuses on the discussion about Japanese and German team
collected data are analysed by cultural variability theories and the adapted model of
at the centre of team leaders’ activity. Cultural values affect team leaders’
communication behaviours. The findings suggest that the effective team leadership
Japanese and German team leaders. For the implications of this study, a model for
vii
1
Chapter 1
Introduction
Background
from Japanese and German culture. People may identify cultural differences in terms
of gender, generation, and class culture. In this project, however, cultural differences
refer to national culture. As Hofstede (1984) agrees that four (later five) cultural
dimensions are identified for national culture; the categorisation such as gender,
generation, and class culture are only parts of integrated social system: national
similarities of understandings between the sender and the receiver (Gudykunst, 2005).
members. The researcher is aware that team members also bring some impacts to
team process. However, this project focuses on the team leaders’ communication
behaviours, because team leadership still plays a crucial role to the success of team.
This research utilises current literature to answer the research questions. Given
the nature of the subject, the resources are largely from areas of leadership, business,
The purpose of this project is to explore and analyse the effects of cultural
Hall’s (1976) study, Japanese is a High-context culture, while German is on the other
review also provides the foundation for a further empirical study of this area.
Rationale
environment. Team has become an integral part of the majority of today’s businesses,
process, the evidence often show that the roles of team leaders still contribute
3
significantly to the whole performance of the team. Cultural diversity adds the
new challenge for team leaders to communicate effectively with team members which
research questions are answered by analysing both theories from literature and
findings from current studies about team leadership communication, particularly the
Research Questions
research questions:
Assumptions
concerned with ambiguity; German team leaders are more concerned with
ambiguity.
forms of verbal communication; German team leaders tend to use direct forms
of verbal communication.
communication.
channels.
communication less.
listening to the members; German team leaders spend less time listening to the
members.
oriented leaders (develop relationship and trust); German team leaders tend to
be task-oriented leaders.
5
Methodology
analyses the literature in the related subject. It mainly focuses on reviewing the
literature and studies about Japanese and German culture, particularly in the area of
communication, which will provide the answer for this research’s questions.
This approach is appropriate for this topic for several reasons: (a) the subject
Japanese and German cultures; (b) a wide variety of studies about Japanese and
German cultures are available from highly qualified scholars, which makes possible to
conduct this research utilising those secondary data; and (c) with consideration of
time and budget, the researcher believes that this approach is the most appropriate for
this project.
Data Collection
In order to answer the research questions, this project collects, synthesises, and
communication, including:
In order to increase the validity and reliability of the findings, this project
mainly consults 60 different resources such as from the internet, online database,
books, and academic journals. Some academic journals include MIT Sloan
International Journal, Journal of Asian Pacific Communication, with some of the key
Data Analysis
For the purpose of this research, the research questions are answered by
relevant key concepts and findings from current research, including the studies about
teamwork, and managerial activities in organisational context. The data were cross-
analysed by using cultural variability theories and the integrated model of team leader
constructs related to this project include those from Hall (1976), Hofstede (1984),
Trompenaars (1993), and the GLOBE study (2004). This extended literature review
will provide an excellent foundation for further empirical study on the same area.
aim of this extended literature review, including the research questions. The
Chapter 2 discusses the definition of team, and the increased use of teams in
Team leadership plays a key role in team performance, even in self-managed teams.
communication with an integrated model of two key communication roles as the basis
Hofstede (1984), Trompenaars (1993), and the GLOBE study (2004). This chapter
describes the impacts of cultural values on the behaviour of the society. The cultural
Chapter 4 presents the cultural values of Japanese and German as found in the
literature. Accordingly, this discussion leads to the analysis of the impacts of culture
Chapter 5 analyses the impacts of culture on Japanese and German team leader
cultures with the data from Japanese and German culture. This chapter concludes with
a conceptual model for team leadership communication across cultures for the
As a conclusion, Chapter 6 reviews the main points from the previous chapters
Chapter 2
Team Leadership
Team
multinational corporations (Barlett & Ghoshal, 1998). “Over the last 15 years, many
companies have adopted some form of work teams and have ‘exported’ this
organizational structure to their global affiliates” (Kirkman, Gibson, & Shapiro, 2001,
p. 15). Teams have become an integral part of the majority of today’s organisations,
(Salas, Stagl, & Burke, 2004). It is common that organisations across industries rely
respective markets (Brennan & Braswell, 2005). A study shows that approximately 80
percent of Fortune 500 companies assign half of their employees on teams (Robbins,
2005).
Evidence suggests that having teamwork benefits the organisational life. The
(Limon & France, 2005), quality improvement, greater innovation, and higher
employee satisfaction (Daft & Lane, 2005). Teams are likely to be more flexible and
responsive to new challenges of today organisation than are traditional forms of group
and disassembling. Katzenbach and Smith (1993) agree that teams have the ability in
9
experiences they have. A study done by the Center for Creative Leadership also
indicates that in the future, organisations are expected to focus more on the areas such
are not always the solution to every organisational situation. The need for teamwork
varies depending on the complexity, the nature of task, and the need for different
team and a group (as shown in Table 1). “Not all groups are teams…, but all teams
meet the qualification of being a group” (Dainton & Zelley, 2005, p. 153). Huszczo
a common goal. Other scholars have considered some other characteristics of a team,
for example short term membership and team members’ specific roles or functions to
as a team when the level of dependency and the degree of commonality among the
members are high (Williams, 1996). Teams are typically self-directed and self-
regulating, therefore they are empowered to complete a project from start to finish
(Dainton & Zelley, 2005). Katzenbach and Smith (2005) agree that the members of a
team have complementary skills, so they can work in a mutual relationship. Daft and
Lane (2005) provide a clearer definition that a team is comprised of two or more
people who interact and coordinate their work to achieve a shared goal. Moreover,
they highlight three key elements of their notion: (a) teams mostly have fewer than 15
people, (b) they work together regularly, and (c) they share a goal/purpose.
10
Table 1
TEAM GROUP
Size Limited Medium/large
Selection Crucial Immaterial
Leadership Shared/rotating Clearly focused leader
Performance Individual & collective Individual
Member Common goals & commitment Common goals
Spirit Dynamic interaction Togetherness, no opponents
Work products Collective Individual
Note. The data are adapted from “Beyond the team,” by R. M. Belbin, 2000, Oxford:
Butterworth-Heinemann; and “The wisdom of teams: Creating the high-performance
organisation,” by J. R. Katzenbach, & D. K. Smith, 1993, New York: McGraw-Hill.
fundamental types of teams according to the need of leadership: (a) functional team,
(b) cross-functional team (project team), and (c) self-directed team (as shown in
Figure 1). Besides, they recognise a new challenge for today’s organisations when the
and cultural diversity. With the use of technological communication as the main tool
for connecting teams, virtual and global teams are increasingly the common practices
The need for traditional leadership The need for team leadership
Note. The data are adapted from “The leadership experience,” by R. L. Daft, & P. G.
Lane, 2005, Mason, Ohio: Thomson/South-Western.
have complementary skills and commitment, and work interdependently for a certain
period of time to achieve a common goal.” In this sense, the size and the membership
period of a team are often limited, because the individuals may be brought from
consequence, this type of teams requires a different type of leadership because of the
(2001) concluded that only 18 percent of teams considered their performance “highly
successful” and the remaining 82 percent fell short of their intended goals. Fully one-
third of the teams rated their performance as largely unsuccessful. This research
shows that working in teams still presents some challenges to individuals as well as
organisations. The efforts have become challenging when the global and multicultural
or can be dispersed across many different countries (Kirkman & Shapiro, 2005).
Earley and Gardner (2005) differentiate multicultural teams from multinational teams
race, ethnicity, to name a few). Multinational teams have been described as teams
whose members originate from two or more different national, and hence, cultural
a hybrid culture.
Multicultural members may bring different perspectives and ideas into teams.
Similarly, teams may benefit from their members, who are functionally diverse.
more creative and higher quality of decisions (Elron, 1997). The study done by
Kirkman and Shapiro (2005) concluded that cultural diversity has significantly
increased cooperation and productivity of teams. Moreover, they argue that cultural
hand, a study done by Lovelace, Shapiro, and Weingart (2001) found that cross-
functional teams often fail to achieve their goals in generating new products, because
of the tendency of the members to have different views of skills. Multicultural teams
rather than homogeneous teams are more likely to result in ineffectiveness of team
13
misunderstandings are likely to occur (Campion, Medsker, & Higgs, 1993). As van
Vianen and De Dreu (2001) argue, individuals are more attracted to others who are
closer to their characteristics rather than to the others who are very different to them.
factor to team outcome (Higgs, Plewnia, & Ploch, 2005). Thus, less team cohesion is
learning, but high heterogeneity in itself does not guarantee strong team performance”
(DeSanctis & Jiang, 2005, p. 118). Therefore, cultural diversity within teams can be
disadvantages of the teams (Gibson & Zellmer-Bruhn, 2001). From reviewing the
literature, Salas et al. (2004) summarised that multicultural teams often produce
several negative outputs, including process loss, lower level of cohesion, trust issues,
the three top challenges of leading global teams include (a) cultivating trust among
individual team members (Govindarajan & Gupta, 2001). This evidence highlights the
importance of having competent team leaders who are capable to deal with those
challenges.
Leadership
shared goals (Robbins, 2005). A more recent notion has been offered by the GLOBE
14
motivate, and enable others to contribute toward the effectiveness and success of the
organizations of which they are members” (House & Javidan, 2004, p. 15). This
concept highlights the roles that leadership holds in generating the effectiveness and
the success of business organisations. To date, there is a wide variety of notions about
leadership, because the “conceptions of ideal leadership change from one time and
culture to another” (Chemers, 1997, p. 21). However, some scholars have attempted
to investigate the ideal leadership that might be applied across cultures for example
the GLOBE study. The discussion about this study will be presented later in the
following chapter. Some theories have emerged to describe leadership. The three most
often cited leadership theories in Western leadership literature are (a) the trait theory,
(b) the behavioural theory, and (c) the contingency and situational theory.
innate attributes of the leaders. This is known as a trait theory of leadership. This
social background (Daft & Lane, 2005). The “Great Man Theory” implies that great
leaders are born to have some special traits or characteristics naturally that make them
to rise to positions regardless of other contextual factors. Leaders are “born, not
made” (Kayworth & Leidner, 2001). Stated differently, this theory identifies the
leaders’ traits that distinguish leaders from non-leaders. Robbins (2005) uses the term
charismatic leadership to emphasise that leaders are likely to have unique personality
characteristics. However, the trait theory has failed to take into account the behaviour
of leaders, and the other factors which may determine the success (Rost, 1991).
Research often found a weak correlation between personal traits and leader success.
15
Stated differently, leaders can be learned, can be made, not born. Specifically, the
Cohen (2000) has given an example, although Bill Gates did not graduate from
college, “he was working on computer systems and had started a successful computer
business when he was in high school. He never stopped learning and getting
A behavioural theory has emerged to uncover the critical behaviours that make
to innate characteristics for success. For example Blake and McCanse’s Leadership
leadership styles based on measuring both the emphasis on people and the emphasis
on production (Daft & Lane, 2005). The Vertical Dyad Linkage Model discusses the
importance of the relationship developed by a leader with each member of the group.
leadership theory (as shown in Figure 2): (a) Vertical Dyad Linkage: leaders’
behaviours and traits have different impacts across subordinates, forming in-groups
each member; (c) Partnership building: leaders can create a positive exchange with
every subordinate; and (d) Systems and networks: relationship can be created in all
directions across level and boundaries to build networks that enhance performance
(Daft & Lane, 2005). In relation to the effectiveness of certain behaviours, the
literature on leader behaviour still has the same issue that was discussed within trait
approach. Several scholars hold a belief that certain leadership behaviours determine a
good leader. For example Cohen (2000) developed the combat model of leadership
that consists of eight “universal” laws of leadership. However, in his later book about
16
10 essential principles for leading a company to victory, Cohen (2004) put a note in
strategy, but not objectives, are an integral part of the process” (p. vii). Furthermore,
in a recent research, the GLOBE (2004) study found the concept of an ideal
leadership that might be accepted and effective “universally” across cultures, but the
conclusion is still derived from the analysis of each individual culture. This evidence
Leader-Member Exchange
Personalised leadership is for each
subordinate. Each dyad involves a unique
exchange
Partnership Building
Leaders create a positive exchange with
subordinate to increase performance
Note. The data are adapted from “The leadership experience,” by R. L. Daft, & P. G.
Lane, 2005, Mason, Ohio: Thomson/South-Western.
situational variables (Kayworth & Leidner, 2001). “Effective leadership is that which
best meets the needs of a group at a particular point in time” (Barker, Wahlers, &
Watson, 2001, p. 145). Moreover, the most important contingencies to leadership are
17
followers (their needs, maturity, and cohesiveness) and situation (task, structure
organisational goals that associated with productivity, and (b) a relationship leader
who focuses on positive relationships between all members; this style is associated
with satisfaction, emphasising maintaining group harmony (Dainton & Zelley, 2005).
This model has three variables, referred to as situational control: (a) leader-member
relations, (b) task structure, and (c) position power (Patton & Downs, 2003). In
effective leadership in an organisation: (a) from the leader: styles, traits, behaviour,
position; (b) from the followers: needs, maturity, training, cohesion; (c) from the
leader’s behaviour directed toward achieving group goals and the pressures on
subordinates to get the work done. The Maintenance (M) dimension implies the
leader’s focus of group stability and social processes. These dimensions are
four types of leaders are the leaders who: (a) high in both dimensions (PM), (b) low in
both dimensions (pm), (c) high in P and low in M (Pm), and (d) low in P and high in
M (pM).
18
depending on the context in which the behaviour occurs. In the Japanese context,
Misumi’s (1985) findings suggest that effective leaders must emphasise Performance
(P) and Maintenance (M) elements together. It also can be predicted that leaders who
concern with both Performance and Maintenance behaviours are effective in some
Asian cultures, because the M behaviours gives followers the feeling that they are
included as members of the leader’s in-group and the P behaviours will result in high
In sum, the trait theories were applicable in the early time, because there was
less developed concept and less education program for leadership development at that
time. The development of leadership study and educational programs over time
supports the perspective that the leaders can be made. However, to some extent, the
personal attributes of the leaders contribute to shaping their leadership skills, just like
the talent that not all people have the same one. In contemporary business, leadership
This concept of leadership may vary depending on several contexts: the leaders, the
followers, and the situation. As one of contributing factors to leadership, the leaders’
behaviours will differ depending on the leader’s personal background such as culture,
from Misumi’s (1985) theory is the element of leader’s power. Perhaps, the power is
not considered as an important factor in Japanese culture considering that both the
leaders and the members emphasise group harmony and relationship. As the
19
leadership also varies according to the situation, the next section presents a discussion
Team leadership
Most teams have certain individuals, often referred to as team leaders, who are
responsible for the life of the whole team, including defining team goals, developing
and structuring the team. Managers are the team leaders of their direct reports;
leaders are often team leaders, because they are responsible for the completion of the
project. In another case, a team member may fill the role of a team leader or the role
of team leader may be rotated among team members (Rees, 2001). The focus of the
literature in team leadership can be categorised into two major themes: teams with
performance. Therefore, this functional leadership theory suggests that effective team
leaders are those who do whatever it takes to solve the problems in a complex
environment (Zaccaro, Rittman, & Marks, 2001). The success of the leader in
defining direction and coordinating the team lead to team effectiveness. This
processes and outcomes. Team leadership is “…perhaps the most critical factor in the
al. (2001) argue that leadership affects team effectiveness through four sets of team
processes: (a) cognitive, (b) motivational, (c) affective, and (d) coordinative (as
Team
Cognitive
Leadership Processes Processes
• Information search and
structuring Team
• Information use in Motivational
problem solving Processes Team
• Managing personnel Effectiveness
resources
Team
• Managing material
Affective
resources
Processes
Team
Coordination
Processes
Their recent model using this approach suggests that leadership processes affect team
sense, team leadership and team processes can affect one another and be affected by
prior team performance. This is the “interface” notion of leadership and team
processes, “the various ways that leadership and team processes become intertwined
belief that interdependence exists between team leader and team members seems to be
linked with the contingency and situational approaches of leadership study, which
hold a belief that effective leadership depends on several factors, such as leaders’
variables and situational variables. In general, Zaccaro et al. (2001) agree that
Secondly, in another situation, where team members may not have clear and
well-defined roles, each member has the opportunity to demonstrate his or her natural
ability as a leader by engaging in leadership roles. In line with this concept, unlike in
the past business environment, every team member may be assigned the position of
leaders from these teams which do not have prescribed roles. In other words,
emergent leaders are not formally assigned from the top, but are perceived by the
team as capable of running the leadership roles (Limon & France, 2005).
still holds a significant role for team success. This role even exists in self-managing
teams, regardless of the dissimilarities from traditional teams. In their study, Cohen,
Lei and Ledford (1997) have investigated the role of leaders in both self-managing
teams and traditional work teams. The finding indicates that self-management
leadership behaviours are perceived more in the self-managing than in the traditional
teams. However, self-managing teams are not totally different from traditionally
managed teams regarding the correlation between self-managing leadership and team
outcomes. This, furthermore, suggests that the role of the leader (known as external
team leader) is still crucial in self-managing teams (Cohen et al., 1997). Therefore, it
is argued that effective leadership is the most critical factor to the success of
organisational teams.
responsible for coordinating team process that affects team performance.” This role is
22
still crucial even in self-managing teams, where the leaders act more as a facilitator.
As included in the discussion above, team leadership concepts can be categorised into
two major themes: teams with assigned leaders and teams with emergent leaders. In
line with this, a team member may fill the role of a team leader or the role of team
leader may be rotated among team members. This significantly brings the issues of
Although the evidence frequently indicates that team leadership affects the
success of team performance, interestingly, not many studies have been conducted to
explore team leaders and their leadership of teams. Previous leadership studies were
how the leaders may generate team processes (Zaccaro et al., 2001). This issue
becomes more complex considering that the features of traditional leadership theories
cannot be generalised into the area of team leadership because teams have specific
characteristics on their work process that differentiate them from the traditional work
To date, the leadership literature has little agreement about the specific roles
and responsibilities of a team leader as organisations must adapt the roles of the
leaders to their team needs (Rees, 2001). A number of scholars believe that the team
leaders should have significant roles for the teams. The majority of studies have
identified two key roles of team leaders: (a) facilitating the team process (problem
solving, coaching, and supporting team members); and (b) managing the team’s
external boundary (linking the team to other units and higher level employees,
performance data, and securing key resources) (Kirkman & Rosen, 2000; Salas et al.,
2004; Steckler & Fondas, 1995). In a similar vein, from a study of high-performing
teams, Yeatts and Hyten (1998) have identified three major roles of the team leaders:
(a) the facilitation of interpersonal processes, particularly the team’s ability to reach
decisions and solve problems; (b) the responsibility for the team logistics of the team
meetings; and (c) the maintenance of open, positive communications, and good
working relationships with the members and with those who are outside the team.
information, thoughts, and ideas clearly; and (b) listening and understanding what
others are saying, thinking, and feeling (McCauley & Van Velsor, 2004). “To be
processes, Dickinson and McIntyre (1997) consider communication as the glue which
binds together all of the other teamwork processes, including team orientation, team
Kayworth & Leidner (2001) has investigated the relationship between leadership roles
and leader effectiveness, and they concluded that while team leaders perform multiple
24
leadership roles simultaneously, and that the most effective leaders are those who act
clarity to their members (Kayworth & Leidner, 2001). In another case, Webber (2002)
agrees that successful teams are ones engaging in effective team processes such as
communication. It is the vital task of team leaders to promote and maintain all
(2005) have listed communication as one of the three most important leader
competencies identified by 89 team members and 50 team leaders from the software
information exchange, being visible to team members, listening to team members, and
They believe that frequent communication and incorporating the views of all
members are significant to team performance. It is the task of the leaders to encourage
team members. Those findings above consistently point out communication as a key
activity of team leaders. In a case where a team member may fill the role of a team
leader or the role of team leader may be rotated among team members, the issue of
(2006) agrees, leadership occurs not from the assignment, but through communication
25
communication also reflects their power and responsibilities for team performance.
influencing and convincing followers to attain specific shared goals. In this sense,
or making effective presentations” (Mai & Akerson, 2003, p. 14). Kotter (2001)
agrees that leadership roles include (a) setting a direction in terms of vision and
strategy, (b) aligning people, and (c) motivating people. In order to perform those
roles, leadership occurs through communication. The leaders communicate the needed
change, new strategies, vision, and value in relation to business, technology, and
corporate culture. Furthermore, Kotter (2001) suggests that vision should consider the
vision of an alternative future, and (b) gaining credibility from team members to
together around a shared goal and identity. Therefore, Daft and Lane (2005) believe
the core of leadership activities that involves persuading and influencing others.
Equally, Kotter (2001) believes that through communication, leaders motivate the
skills of the leaders. They distinguished two approaches based on the assumption that
26
and to manage group goals, such as analysing the problems, establishing criteria or
& Downs (2003) categorised two “functions” of leadership: task and maintenance
functions. The task functions of leaders include setting and clarifying goals,
key communication roles of team leaders can be categorised into two major themes:
(a) task communication (setting a vision and strategy, coaching, giving feedback); and
conflict management) (Barker et al., 2001; Kotter, 2001; Patton & Downs, 2003;
interaction. The next chapter presents the cultural differences by discussing cultural
contrasting Japanese and German culture. The Japanese and German communication
Chapter 3
Culture
This sophisticated notion implies many possible descriptions of culture. Although the
definition of culture varies widely, in the GLOBE study, Dorfman and House (2004)
characteristics among their members: shared ways of thinking, feeling, and reacting;
ways in which technology are used; and commonly experienced events including the
history, language, and religion of their members. The GLOBE study particularly
focuses on the assessment of beliefs and values of certain society. This results in the
presentation of practices and values scores of cultures (Javidan & House, 2001). Other
scholars have described culture as “the coherent, learned, shared view of a group of
people about life’s concerns that ranks what is important, furnishes attitudes about
what things are appropriate and dictates behaviour” (Varner & Beamer, 2005, p. 5).
This notion emphasises culture as the reference of the values, attitudes and behaviours
there are three different levels of culture (from the highest to the lowest): (a) national
development, to name a few. This project focuses on the first level, the differences at
Cultural Dimensions
Individualism-Collectivism
cultural dimensions that explain the differences in thinking and social action that exist
Uncertainty Avoidance, (d) masculinity versus femininity, and (e) Long term versus
Short term orientation (the latest dimension added in the 2001 edition). For this
project, the three cultural dimensions related to team leadership communication will
Avoidance.
the major cultural dimension used to explain differences and similarities in cross-
although people can be individualists and collectivists at the same time (Kirkman et
al., 2001). One study has concluded that people may be high in both Individualism
and Collectivism, because they were raised in a collectivist culture and then lived in
individual is the most important entity, (b) the self is independent in Individualism,
(c) the reward for individual achievement, and (d) the emphasis on the uniqueness of
individual. On the other hand, four characteristics associated with collectivist cultures
are as follows: (a) the group’s goals, views, and needs are more important than those
of individual, (b) obligation to the group is the norm, (c) the self is defined in
association with others, and (d) the emphasis is on cooperation rather than
On the other hand, personal relationships are established first and are more important
than tasks in a collectivist society (Hofstede, 1984). Individualists tend to have many
groups, but their relationships are superficial, while collectivists tend to form a few of
indirect fashion (Gudykunst & Lee, 2002). Triandis (2003) observed that collectivists
often use action verbs (for example “she offered to help”) rather than state verbs (for
focused, shorter, with more reference to ‘I’ and to specific goals, while in collectivist
31
cultures, speech tends to include more qualifiers such as maybe, perhaps, somewhat,
Highly individualist cultures come from the United States, Australia, Canada,
New Zealand, Denmark, Norway, and Germany. On the other end of the continuum,
Moreover, the latest findings from the GLOBE project (see GLOBE study
170 management scholars and social scientist from 62 countries for the purpose of
data from over 18,000 managers, representing a majority of the world population
(GLOBE, 2006, February 13). As will be explained later, the GLOBE study measures
both cultural practices and values at the organisational and societal level of analysis.
There are two types of scores in the societal level of analysis in which a culture differs
from the others: society practices scores and society values scores (as shown in Table
2) (Javidan, House, & Dorfman, 2004). The practices scores are the beliefs; people’s
perceptions of how things are done in their culture (referred to as “As Is” construct).
The values scores are people’s aspirations about the way things should be done; their
preferences (referred to as “Should Be” construct) (Javidan & House, 2001). The top
third of Hofstede’s individualist cultures are in the most individualist band (band C)
in the GLOBE data of societal institutional Collectivism value. These cultures include
the United States, Australia, Canada, New Zealand, and Denmark. Equally, the most
32
collectivist cultures in Hofstede’s ranking are in the most collectivist band (band A) in
the GLOBE score. These include Colombia, Thailand, Mexico, and the Philippines.
This recent finding clearly contradicts Hofstede’s study. This latest result suggests
that the respondents in New Zealand believe that they should be more collectivist
Table 2
Note. The data are adapted from “Culture, leadership, and organizations: The
GLOBE study of 62 societies,” by R. J. House, P. J. Hanges, M. Javidan, P. W.
Dorfman, & V. Gupta, 2004, Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
have been significantly steady over the last 30 year period (Gelfand et al., 2004).
However, this is not a surprising fact in the sense that cultures change slowly because
Power Distance
of the two, S (subordinate)” (Hofstede, 2001, p. 83). The Power Distance Index (PDI)
describes a scale from high to low Power Distance. In relation to the individualism-
collectivism dimension above, many countries that score low on the individualism
index (IDV), score high on the Power Distance Index (PDI). High Power Distance
countries are likely to be more collectivist; low Power Distance countries are likely to
be more individualist (Hofstede, 2003). However, Triandis (1995) observed that there
dimensions.
People from high Power Distance cultures consider power as a basic factor in
society. In contrast, people from low Power Distance cultures believe that power
should be used when it is legitimate (appropriate and legal) (Gudykunst, Lee, Nishida,
& Ogawa, 2005). In a high Power Distance culture, supervisors and subordinates
in this culture, with power concentrated in few hands. The hierarchical system is
made for an inequality of roles and harmony for the interaction in the workplace.
Subordinates are expected to be told what to do. Contacts between supervisors and
beneficent autocrat or the good father, in the subordinates’ point of view (Hofstede,
2003) therefore the subordinates expect the supervisors to act in a more autocratic and
directive style (Connerley & Pedersen, 2005). In a low Power Distance culture,
supervisors and subordinates mostly consider each other as equal. Most organisations
in these cultures are decentralised, with flatter hierarchical pyramids. Supervisors are
2005).
34
culture. In a low (small index) Power Distance cultures, subordinates and supervisors
have a limited dependence, and a preference for consultation. In other word, there is
approach and contradict their supervisors directly (Hofstede, 2003). In high Power
Distance cultures, on the other hand, subordinates and supervisors have a considerable
Low and high Power Distance exist in all cultures; however, one is likely to
Philippines, Mexico, Arab countries, and India. Cultures that tend to be mainly low in
Power Distance include Austria, Denmark, New Zealand, Sweden, Norway, and
Germany. The moderate Power Distance cultures include Greece, Taiwan, Spain,
positively with the GLOBE Power Distance construct. Specifically, it is likely that
Hofstede’s PDI indicates more of societal Power Distance practices than values (refer
to Table 2) (Carl, Gupta, & Javidan, 2004). In relation to this project, this concept
Uncertainty Avoidance
and rituals. Hofstede’s (2001) Uncertainty Avoidance Index (UAI) implies the
continue work with a company and the level of stress at work. Hofstede (2001)
suggests that low Uncertainty Avoidance cultures are more open to change and
35
innovation, more comfortable with ambiguity and chaos, more risk taking, more
Avoidance cultures can be found in Greece, Uruguay, Japan, Spain, and France. Low
notion of tight or loose culture. They agree that there are many rules, norms, and
standards for “proper” behaviour in tight cultures. Chan, Gelfand, Triandis, and Tzeng
(1996) observed that in tight cultures, norms are explained clearly, and society is
norms. Compared to those of the tight cultures, less of rules and norms operate in
loose cultures. The society in these cultures is unlikely to strictly observe others’
deviation from normative behaviour (Chan et al., 1996). In loose culture, people may
have different perspectives about “proper” behaviour, so there is much tolerance when
others behave improperly. Furthermore, the tight or loose cultures are determined by
(Triandis, 2004). The tight – loose dimension is correlated with Hofstede’s (1984)
Uncertainty Avoidance. High Uncertainty Avoidance cultures are tight, because the
society wants to have structure and wants members to know how to they are supposed
Avoidance societies tend to follow and impose the rules strongly; breaking the
for breaking the rules are predominant in these societies. Conversely, low Uncertainty
Avoidance societies believe that rules can be broken or changed for certain reason.
Achievement-Ascription
dilemmas because of the tension between different values in business across cultures.
by two major bases: their achievement or by virtue of age, class, gender, education
conducted by Parsons and Shils in 1951 (Javidan, 2004). Achieved status refers to
achieving (what an individual does) and Ascribed status refers to being (who an
oriented cultures, several factors are valued for business performances, including age,
cultures confer status largely on the basis of who the individual is (Javidan, 2004).
individual’s performance and achievement. For example, the United States culture
37
believes that anyone can be a president in the United States (Javidan, 2004). In
important. For example in Japan, historically, promotion to higher positions has been
Australia, Canada, and the United Kingdom. On the other hand, the Ascription-
oriented cultures include Egypt, Argentina, Korea, and Japan. The middle between
Orientation construct (see the Performance Orientation section in the GLOBE study).
for example the United States, Australia, and Canada. On the other hand, the
instance Japan and South Korea. However, there is inconsistent correlation for several
than 170 management scholars and social scientist from 62 countries for the purpose
collect data from over 18,000 managers, representing a majority of the world
population (GLOBE, 2006, February 13). The GLOBE study objectives were to
investigate the leader behaviours, attributes, and organisational practices that may
universally applied and effective across cultures. Their analyses of their data resulted
in the identification of nine cultural dimensions and six global leader behaviours of
serve as the independent variables of project GLOBE. The GLOBE measures both
cultural practices and values at the organisational and societal level of analysis. This
cultures. There are two types of scores in the societal level of analysis in which a
culture differs from the others: society practices scores and society values scores
(Javidan et al., 2004). The practices scores are the beliefs; people’s perceptions of
how things are done in their culture (referred to as “As Is” construct). The values
scores are people’s aspirations about the way things should be done; their preferences
relationships between those nine cultural dimensions and several dependent variables.
endorsed implicit leadership theory (CLT), the Human Development Index, indices of
economic prosperity (gross national product [GNP] per capita), measures of the
additional variables related to the human condition (House & Javidan, 2004). The
leaders from followers, effective leaders from ineffective leaders, and moral leaders
(f) Assertiveness, (g) Future Orientation, (h) Performance Orientation, and (i)
Humane Orientation (House & Javidan, 2004). The first six cultural dimensions above
are rooted in Hofstede’s (1984) dimensions of culture and the adequate data provide a
mirrors Hofstede’s Individualism index. This dimension may take the form of laws,
The In-Group Collectivism was developed from a study done by Triandis in 1995.
This dimension measures the level of pride and loyalty in families and organisations
(House & Javidan, 2004). The Gender Egalitarianism and Assertiveness scales were
Javidan, 2004). The six global leader behaviours are as follows: (a)
(e) Autonomous, and (f) Self-Protective (House & Javidan, 2004). For this research,
the three cultural dimensions of the GLOBE study (besides Hofstede’s originated
Assertiveness
culture, but has received little attention in the cross-cultural literature (Hartog, 2004).
characteristics, but also as a cultural dimension that reflects shared societal beliefs
(Hartog, 2004).
masculinity vs. femininity (Hartog, 2004). Hofstede (1984) has observed that
Assertiveness is likely to be a behaviour that people associate more with men than
managers. Schein’s (as cited in Hartog, 2004) study in 2001 found that this pattern
still exists to large extent, especially among male respondents in five cultures studied
(China, Japan, Great Britain, Germany, and the United States). In a conclusion of this
study, the successful managers are seen as assertive and dominant. Assertiveness is
also associated with the preferred use of language in society. Assertive cultures tend
to use Low-context language (direct, clear, and explicit) (see the discussion about
High-Low context later in this chapter); while less-assertive cultures tend to use High-
context language (less direct, more ambiguous, and more subtle) (Hartog, 2004). The
most assertive cultures can be found in Germany, Austria, Greece, the United States,
and Spain; the least assertive cultures can be found in Sweden, New Zealand,
Egypt, Ireland, the Philippines, Ecuador, and France (Javidan & House, 2001).
41
However, the GLOBE findings discovered that most Asian countries such as
Japan, China, Malaysia, and Indonesia highly value the Assertiveness in practices.
Perhaps, this latest finding reflects the desire of Japanese society to be more assertive,
tougher, and more direct in their communication style, because their current usual
practices are being less-assertive with the preferred use of indirect communication
style (as shown in Table 3). In other words, “societies scoring relatively high on
current Assertiveness practices want less and societies scoring relatively low want
Table 3
Note. The data are adapted from “Culture, leadership, and organizations: The
GLOBE study of 62 societies,” by R. J. House, P. J. Hanges, M. Javidan, P. W.
Dorfman, & V. Gupta, 2004, Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Future Orientation
current actions will influence their future, focus on investment in their future,
believe that they will have a future that matters, believe in planning for
developing their future, and look far into the future for assessing the effects of
42
285)
planning, preparing and investing for the future. To some extent, it is associated with
the notion of short-term vs. long term orientation (Hofstede, 2001). Low Future-
oriented cultures or high present-oriented cultures tend to show the capability to enjoy
the moment and be spontaneous. The societies are free from the past worries and the
future anxieties. On the other hand, high Future-oriented cultures are likely to have a
strong ability for planning future goals, seeking to achieve those goals, and
developing strategies for their future dreams (Ashkanasy et al., 2004). In this sense,
money, to name a few, in order to achieve their future goals. The high Future-oriented
Germany (east), and India. The low Future-oriented cultures can be found in Russia,
Performance Orientation
and groups that achieve results and accomplish their tasks. They are likely to focus on
task more than social relationships. In communication, they tend to be direct, explicit,
and to the point. They view feedback as necessary for improvement. On the other
hand, less Performance-oriented cultures are likely to value social relationship more
than task. They tend to use a less direct, more ambiguous, and more subtle mode of
43
be found in Singapore, New Zealand, the United States, and Malaysia. The low
and Italy. The moderate orientation cultures predominate in Germany (west and east),
to contradict the facts found in much literature that Japanese are hard workers and
have high loyalty to their company (see The Japaneseness section later in this
chapter). It is even more interesting to find out that Japanese increasingly value of
Table 4
Note. The data are adapted from “Culture, leadership, and organizations: The
GLOBE study of 62 societies,” by R. J. House, P. J. Hanges, M. Javidan, P. W.
Dorfman, & V. Gupta, 2004, Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
One possible explanation for this is the considerable impacts of amae which have
made the Japanese focus more on group and harmony than task. Another possible
Japanese feedback is likely on the drinking session after working hours. After all, the
Quality Circles and Continuous Improvement movements that were so very big in
44
Japan counted on feedback (Varner & Beamer, 2005). Although the significance of
(Trompenaars, 1993).
creating, sustaining, and managing meaning among people (Conrad & Poole, 2005).
of social reality. This point of view is based on the assumption that people
enables people to share and develop culture. Thus, communication and culture are
that the message is transmitted, but also that it is understood. For this understanding to
occur, both speaker and listener must share knowledge about several contexts in
which communication occurs. The next section will discuss communication and
surrounding the message; the receivers of the message take into account the context,
including gestures, facial expressions, eye contact, and silence, to name a few. “What
is unsaid but understood carries more weight than what is actually written down or
cultures rely on the words and written message. Hall (1976) described those two
contexts as follows:
very little is in the coded, explicit, transmitted part of the message. A low-
context (LC) communication is just the opposite; i.e., the mass of information is
vested in the explicit code. Twins who have grown up together can and do
Similarly, Gudykunst and Lee (2002) agree that High-context cultures tend to
use indirect, implicit and ambiguous words, because these cultures focus on the
be more group oriented and hierarchical (Varner & Palmer, 2005). On the other hand,
Hall’s (1976) research concludes that the Low-context cultures include Swiss,
Germans, Americans, and Scandinavians, and other northern Europeans. The High-
context cultures can be found in Asia, particularly China, Japan, and Korea. Cultures
46
such as the French, English, and Italian are located somewhere in the middle of the
continuum. In this project, comparison will be made between Japanese and German,
two cultures on the opposite ends of the continuum for context-based communication,
to give a better understanding in the effects of this culture difference on effective team
communication is ineffective, because they are not familiar with ambiguity. However,
this assumption may lead to misunderstanding and conflict in the worst case if one
effectiveness actually comes from the receivers’ knowing how to interpret the
senders’ indirect messages in specific contexts (Gudykunst & Lee, 2002). These
communication behaviour.
47
Chapter 4
The Japaneseness
This section reviews the key elements that are significant to Japanese cultures
and values: (a) harmony (Wa), (b) pride (Kao), (c) the way of doing things (Shikata),
(d) dependency (Amae), (e) spirit (Seishin), (f) obligation (Giri-On), (g) the group and
decision making, and (h) rank and hierarchy. These are the contexts that lead to the
Harmony (Wa)
Japanese originated from Korean peninsula until 8th century A.D (Gannon, 2004).
Between the 4th and 6th century, Japanese had substantial developments in agriculture
and had been influenced by Chinese culture from the Korean peninsula in the forms of
Buddhism, Confucianism, and Chinese scripts (Lorriman & Kenjo, 1994). The
encourage the individuals becoming tightly knit communities with strong family
relationships, because planting and harvesting rice need a collaborative work of many
people. The on-going tradition of working in group seems to lead to the emphasis on
the importance of group activities and group harmony (wa) in this culture (Lorriman
& Kenjo, 1994). In the 7th century, this harmony was reflected in the country’s first
harmony as the foundation for all of the others. The Japanese always have an
48
awareness of the difference between things foreign and native (Gannon, 2004). They
value their Japaneseness while borrowing things from “outsiders”. However, Chinese
culture had a considerable impact on the Japanese, because they studied Buddhism
from the 7th to the 9th century. They even adopted the Chinese writing system, which
has specific characters, but they speak differently (Gannon, 2004). In the further
development, they also created characters not in classical or modern Chinese, and
samurai or warriors, who had high loyalty to their lord, who in turn swore loyalty to
the shogun, who swore loyalty to the royal family, then it subsequently reflects the
loyalty to the ultimate family, the nation (Gannon, 2004). The basic integrated value
of the samurai system is Bushido, the way of the warrior. In general, Bushido is the
unwritten code influencing the Japanese culture. Bushido covers virtues, such as
suicide and redress” (Lorriman & Kenjo, 1994, p. 16). In addition, there were four
main classes of occupation during shogun era: (a) samurai, (b) farmers, (c) artists, and
(d) merchants, in descending order of status. There were also courtiers, doctors, and
priests. Everyone was born and automatically belongs to his or her own class
Honna and Hoffer (1989) agree that harmony (wa) within the group is
involves cooperation, trust, sharing, and warmth, based on a caring attitude toward
others” (Hall & Hall, 1987, p.78). People in this culture are likely to think and behave
avoid being totally different from the majority. Thus, wa emphasises groupness and
49
2000).
Pride (Kao)
The Japanese term kao contributes to the indirectness of the language. English
has no word comparable to kao. Kao means pride, self-esteem, and reputation, the
vital features of the Japanese (Hall & Hall, 1987). Japanese often apologise by using
the apologetic expressions (e.g. sumimasen) (Lincoln, Kerbo, & Wittenhagen, 1995).
They avoid saying “no” by using the replacement words that have a similar function
to “no”, because they concern other people’s feeling (Hall & Hall, 1987). They do so
kao, a foreigner cannot criticise the Japanese directly in any way, because the
Japanese have a strong behaviour to maintain harmony (wa) and relationship with
others (Nishiyama, 2000). The emphasis on achieving harmony and protecting face is
the norm in order to avoid losing each other’s prestige and self-respect. The
maintain and restore face loss, and to uphold and honor face gain” (Ting-Toomey &
Kurogi, 1998, p. 190). Face negotiation theory focuses on three face concerns that
occur in interaction: (a) “self-face” is concern for one’s own image, (b) “other-face” is
concern for another’s image, and (c) “mutual-face” is concern for both images and the
image of the relationship (Ting-Toomey & Kurogi, 1998). Oetzel et al. (2003) agree
that the concept of facework has commonly emphasised face as a secondary focus that
supports the primary focus during interaction, such as influencing or managing issues.
However, they then argue that face-saving is used as a primary concern in social
50
others’ face is crucial for maintaining harmony. The significance of the notion of
expressions: kao ni doro wo nuru (having face smeared with mud), kao wo tsubushu
(having face crushed), kao ga hiroi (having a widely recognised face) (Nishiyama,
2000, p. 20).
Japanese believe that there is an inner order (the individual) and a neutral
order (the universe) and both are bound together by form; form (kata) for addressing
someone, doing business, and treating foreigners, to name a few. “Shikata is the way
of doing things, with special emphasis on the form and order of the process” (Gannon,
2004, p. 33). In this society, an individual is assumed to have categorised and defined
life roles (bun) in which obligations are described in detail. Perhaps it is also the
explanation behind the shift of communication style used by the Japanese from Low-
context to High-context style when dealing with foreigners, because there is a way
(kata) of dealing with foreigners. When meeting for the first time, Japanese often
follow the kata or form of exchanging business cards, meishi, to introduce each
person’s specific rank and group affiliation for reducing uncertainty (Lincoln et al.,
1995).
Dependency (Amae)
Amae is the glue that keeps Japanese society together. There is no English
word equivalent to it, but the closest one is “dependency” (Gannon, 2004). It is the
real ingredient of Japanese psychology (Doi, 1981). Amae strengthens the loyalty, the
tie felt between members within the group. This emphasis on the group actually starts
from birth. Mothers tend to give a lot of love and attention to their children, especially
51
boys. All of these behaviours lead to a high degree of dependence on the mother and
foster a sense of oneness between a mother and a child. It also indicates “helplessness
and the desire to be loved” (Doi, 1981, p. 22). According to Hall and Hall (1987), the
essence of amae is that “one’s personal identity is rooted in the soil of one’s
literature review, Tezuka (1993, cited in Miike, 2003) observed that amae is
(a) a need for “oneness” with others, (b) a need for dependence on others, and (c) a
relationship with men of power, status, and influence. This attaches him to them in a
reciprocal relationship with their mentor (senpai or sempai) (Gannon, 2004). This
train a junior (kohai) in the ways of the company (Lincoln et al., 1995). It is easier for
the Japanese to communicate with others if they are in a dependency relationship with
that person (Hall & Hall, 1987). Generally speaking, amae is a type of relationship
that provides a model of human relationship especially when one person is senior to
health and life insurance. In return, employees develop a close relationship with the
company, which gradually becomes at least as important as their family (Hall & Hall,
dedication to the organisation (Tang et al., 2000). Japanese focus on the group
relationship, usually the group with which they work in a company. They usually
identify themselves according to the group or organisation they belong to. The
Spirit (Seishin)
an integral part of the Japanese life. Seishin training has been commonly applied to
the martial arts, flower arrangements, and the tea ceremony (Gannon, 2004). This
training is associated with Zen Buddhism, a unique form of Buddhism that is common
personal spiritual growth and freedom, the Japanese use it to achieve practical goals,
training primarily emphasises the individual level, but it also can be used for
companies use this element through their training programmes, in order to encourage
transformations of this philosophy, the Japanese are likely to believe that the
individual has to try very hard in order to overcome any obstacle. Seishin helps people
society, because group’s interests often need the individual’s sacrifice (Gannon,
2004).
Interestingly, the GLOBE study found that Japanese scores only moderate in
the Performance Orientation dimension from the GLOBE study. According to this
accomplishing task. In this sense, Japanese culture is likely to suit with the finding
above, because this society values social relationship more than task.
Obligation (Giri-On)
Japanese are famous for their motivation to work hard to achieve their goals.
This behaviour can be explained by the existence of many Japanese words involving
obligation, duty, and perseverance, such as giri, which is commonly translated as duty
and to remain loyal to the company. Rhody and Tang (1995) have observed that
Japanese view their works as an obligation to society and to oneself as a human being,
rather than a form of economic transaction. Although this behaviour can be seen as a
which may imply a negative image of this behaviour. They also noted that the
Interestingly, in a survey Turpin (as cited in Rhody & Tang, 1995) interviewed
Japanese managers and found three favourite words among them are effort,
This concept originated from the samurai ethics. “When a feudal samurai received an
on from a lord, he repaid the favour by offering his service (military service)”
The difference between giri and on is the target (person) of the obligation. Giri
refers to an obligation to another person, with whom one can interact face to face, and
obligation which can have as its target one’s ancestors, a faraway inaccessible
one’s environment, and human relationships. Because of this national culture, the
encourage and place responsibility on groups rather than on individuals (Tang et al.,
2000). In a group work, Japanese are likely to have a generalist and diffuse view of
responsibility (Salk & Brannen, 2000) as they work and share the responsibility as a
group, because group’s goal is more important than individual’s goal. Often, there is
no formal and well-defined job description for each individual in a group. The use of
teams is more common among Japanese than other cultures. Relationship and trust in
the work group are crucial (Rhody & Tang, 1995). Therefore, a company sometimes
In many roles, there is a difference between the “public self” and “private self”
(Swierczek & Onishi, 2003). In relation to this, Triandis (2001) believes that in-group
and out-group relationships affect behaviours even within the same culture. This
faced (Swierczek & Onishi, 2003). The clear examples of this behaviour will be given
styles according to the situation, but their private self seems to be dominated by their
sense, Japanese managers prefer sharing the office space with subordinates to ensure
that information is shared equally. It can be reflected into a classroom setting style:
the manager in front of the subordinates and they work in subgroups with their own
supervisors. If the group is small, everyone will sit around the table with the most
Decision making also reflects the emphasis on the group. Harmony and
consensus are crucial in the life of Japanese. Decision making in this culture seems
too complicated and involves every member of the organisation. This is particularly
true in large firms. In business, ringi-sho is a proposal of the project. It includes the
project’s goals, benefits, analysis, costs, and time frames (Hall & Hall, 1987). The
proposal is actually coming from the top, and is given to the management levels,
lowest first, to consider (Varner & Beamer, 2005). The ringi-sho works slowly on its
way through many layers of the organisation, with some revisions and clarifications.
(Varner & Beamer, 2005). This process of collective decision making consults every
of consultation encourages the collective agreements from middle and lower levels in
the organisations. However, the final decision making is often the big boss (Varner &
Beamer, 2005). Once a decision is made, it can be implemented quickly and precisely,
because it has been approved by everyone in the department (Lincoln et al., 1995). It
success (Tang et al., 2000). In contrast, decision making in small companies and
family owned-companies can be authoritarian; the owners make the decisions and tell
and status are considered natural. Ranking is highly respected in this culture (Hall &
Hall, 1987). A person’s rank is usually more important than his or her name. For
example, the principal of the school is simply addressed by the Japanese word for
principal, kocho sensei (Gannon, 2004). In the workplace, honorific terms are used to
address higher status managers. Those terms also have been used to address senior
companies with more than 3,000 employees do not use honorific terms, compared to
34 percent in 1995 (Gannon, 2004). In a group, the person of higher rank usually
walks slightly in front, goes through the door first, and sits down first. Another sign
that indicates rank is the appearance: clothes that are conservative and well-tailored.
The sensitivity for the rank also extends to the wives of Japanese executives (Hall &
Hall, 1987).
A hierarchical system exists within and between different groups. The formal
that situates employees in a vertical status hierarchy. The titles for most organisations
include (a) bucho: department head, (b) jicho: assistant department head, (c) kacho:
section head, and (d) kakaricho: assistant section head, to name a few (Lincoln et al.,
1995). As Shibata (1999) has observed in a study of Japanese plants in the United
States, the hierarchical structures commonly found include section managers, first-
is so embedded in Japanese society so that the Japanese do not need status symbols
57
such as private offices to express rank (Hall & Hall, 1987). Therefore, the office space
is organised as having no other private work areas; Japanese executives do not have
executive dining rooms and reserved parking spaces, except ceremonial and meeting
Japanese-managed company (Tang et al., 2000). However, the position of the desk or
the chair in a large room still communicates the rank. The chair farthest from the door
This fact contradicts Hofstede’s (1984) finding that Japanese is a high Power
supervisors and subordinates. In this sense, the supervisors are perceived to have
different (higher) status from their subordinates, which can be reflected on the special
facilities for supervisors such as parking spaces. In this case, it is likely that the
Japanese team orientation is more predominant than the Power Distance value.
because it is considered polite. This is particularly true when Japanese interact with
interacting with foreigners, but they use a Low-context style when interacting among
2001) have argued that collectivists differentiate more between in-group and out-
group than do individualists. In this sense, the Japanese, as collectivists will use
different behaviours and strategies from “regular” interaction with themselves (in-
“no.” Japanese will say replacement words that have a similar function to “no”,
because they focus on other people’s feelings (Hall & Hall, 1987). Some example of
“no” equivalents in Japanese include chigau (it is different), dame (no good), sonna
koto wa nai (it is no such thing), iya desu (that is hateful), and betsu ni (not
especially) (Miller, 1994). In order to avoid saying “no”, Japanese usually utilise
Japanese word often cited as an ambiguous word. Several variety meanings of domo
include “very”, “quite”, “really”, “thank you”, “sorry”, “excuse me”, and “somehow”.
In line with the ambiguity, the “yes” answers from Japanese do not always mean
exactly “yes”. It may have a variety of meaning. Nishiyama (2000) believes that this
tradition originated from the habitual use of “hai” (means Okay, or I am here, or Yes,
when they hear something. It simply means “Yes, I hear what you are saying,” but
may not necessarily mean “Yes, I agree with you.” This style of answering is called
Maynard (1997) considers amae as the fundamental element for the Low-
context style of interaction in this culture. Japanese frequently use direct and
confrontational communication with those that have close relationships, for instance
their family members, and this behaviour is associated with the existence of amae
relationships among family members. “Everyday conflicts are mostly among uchi [in-
group] members. Blatant and blunt confrontations often occur among close friends,
associated with amae (Miike, 2003). Amae generates the predominance of “we” over
“I” in Japanese interaction. The group’s opinion is more important than the
their opinion in exact and explicit style, because of their enryo (see the next part:
(2000) believes that enryo is the impact of the emphasis on harmony and consensus
so that it generates social pressures for conformity. From the early age, Japanese
children are taught to conform to the pressures vertically (from their family members
and teachers) and horizontally (from their schoolmates). In the workplace, they are
disagreements with the majority opinion (Wierzbicka, 1997). In this sense, conformity
to the majority is valued more than disagreement. In line with maintaining harmony
(wa), to the Japanese this social conformity is a result of inner strength and self-
different view from the group. Wierzbicka (1997) observed that enryo concerns not
only the individual’s personal opinions, but also his or her desire, preference, and
wish. Sasshi refers to the acceptance. Enryo is a part of the speakers, while sasshi is
on the part of the listeners. Miike (2003) believes that the successful interaction of
enryo-sasshi communication relies on the balance between enryo (from the speakers)
dialects of verbal communication exist in this culture, for example people from
Honshu have their own dialect different from people from Kyushu (Varner & Beamer,
valued more in this culture. Hall and Hall (1987) argue that indirectness appears in
this culture because of the social relationships, which are High-context in Japan; so
over explication is less important in this tight culture. Varner and Palmer (2005)
result of emphasising harmonious relationships in this culture. This is also due to the
foreigners, the Japanese are comfortable with a wide range of kinesics behaviours,
especially gestures. The Japanese are expressive within their in-group. Away from in-
group, they may restrict their expression. For example, it is common to find both
Japanese males and females sitting quietly in public, with hands folded. This gesture
situational harmony or balance (McDaniel, 2003). The smile in Japanese culture may
be used to express a happy and pleasant face to outsiders, with the main purpose of
eye contact, the Japanese maintain situational wa (McDaniel, 2003). Another common
activity associated with Japanese kinesics is the bow. The Japanese bow is used for
61
to name a few (Hall & Hall, 1987). It is an integral part of daily social interaction. It
communicates respect and denotes hierarchical status, for example the person with the
least status usually bows first, lowest, and longest (Hall & Hall, 1987). Because of its
significant feature, the next part discusses the value of silence in Japanese
communication.
Silence
just like a common Japanese proverb, “those who know do not speak; those who
speak do not know” (Gannon, 2004). Yamada (1994) also has given an example of
another proverb that shows the value of silence: “bigen shin narazu” (beautiful speech
lacks sincerity). Those old sayings in Japanese support the Japanese perspective that
verbal communication is flawed and insincere, while silence is pure and ideal
which verbal communication is a tool for exchanging messages and reaching mutual
culture (Yamada, 1994). Silence may also be employed to indicate disagreement, non-
Japanese conversations involves many short pauses on breaks (ma). These pauses may
indicate meaning, show respect, or asses the other person or the situation (McDaniel,
Moreover, she argued that talk-distancing features contribute to the indirect and
situation from contextual information, rather than asking directly. In other words, they
expression, and body movement of the other speakers. Japanese value a feeling of
processes more than a legal document (Hall & Hall, 1987). The use of paralanguage
use small, culturally unique gestures (aizuchi) and utterances (hai, soo, un, or ee) to
express their attention to the speakers (McDaniel, 2003). They nod frequently when
they are listening. This is the unique gesture of aizuchi (agreeing signal) (Nishiyama,
2000). This kind of feedback from the listeners helps maintaining positive social
Japanese utilise five major writing systems: (a) kanji; (b) kana (hiragana,
katakana, furigana); (c) romanji; (d) arabic numerals; and (e) chinese numerals
(Nishiyama, 2000). Kanji writing includes more than 3,000 characters that originated
from Chinese characters with more than 5000 possible pronunciations and covering at
least 5000 possible meanings (Belote, 2001). The adoption of Chinese characters is a
63
result of the interaction with Chinese in the fourth century A.D. Hiragana developed
by women at court because they were not allowed to learn kanji, appears to be more
cursive (rounder) and is phonetic. School children learn it before kanji and katakana.
Katakana is used for writing the sounds of borrowed words (especially words from
non-Japanese origin) and for emphasis. Katakana is more angular and linear in the
form than hiragana. Furigana is a smaller than usual syllable sign (usually hiragana)
that is written alongside or above a kanji to show the correct pronunciation. Romanji
is the Roman alphabet. Most Japanese also use the Arabic numerals. Chinese
Politeness
the ritual gestures of deference and humility (bowing); the verb endings and forms
of address that vary with the status of the parties and the formality of the occasion;
This also seems to be associated with face-saving behaviour, because the Japanese
“no” (iie) sounds rather formal and too straightforward, unlike English, in which the
word “no” may cause no discomfort or offence to the listener (Ueda, 1974, cited in
Miller, 1994).
64
long time to solidify, especially for foreigners. Because Japanese emphasises harmony
(wa) and membership within groups, the important relationships are within an
individual’s family, business or professional group (Hall & Hall, 1987). It can be
predicted that Japanese also pay more attention in the relationship gradually
developed during business than particular details in business contract, because they
focuses more on the process rather than on the result (Rhody & Tang, 1995). Japanese
males socialise and drink after working hours at bars. At this time, there is no
criticise their supervisor freely, without having any fear of termination from work
two different faces: uchizura (face toward insiders) and sotozura (face toward
outsiders) (Nishiyama, 2000). This context can also be seen as in-group (processing
be quite expressive within in-group communication (uchi) and less interaction will
The Germaness
This section reviews the four elements that are significant to German cultures
and values: (a) orderliness (Ordnung), exactness, and punctuality; (b) the educational
and apprenticeship system; (c) the group and decision making; and (d) power,
hierarchy, and status. These are the contexts that lead to the explanation of specific
German life is controlled by many rules and regulations which is the reflection
of ordnung. Ordnung means order, arrangement, organisation, and system (Hall &
Hall, 1990). “Alles muß seine Ordnung haben (everything must have its order). Order
is a main concern, and detailed provisions are made to guarantee that order” (Varner
& Beamer, 2005, p. 197). Because ordnung (order) is valued high in this culture, the
German team leaders tend to live by rules. Order is achievable when there are
constant rules, regulations, and procedures, particularly in this culture, for example
noise of any kind is verboten (forbidden) during afternoon time (between 1:30 – 3:30
PM) rural area of the city (Flamini, 1997), golfers need to obtain a special license to
drive a golfing cart (Gannon, 2004), never wash a car on a Sunday morning (Foster,
2000). However, there is one exception to orderliness: Germans do not form queues in
lines for service, for buses or streetcars, in stores, and at ticket counters (Hall & Hall,
1990). Germans tend to do one thing at a time, therefore the schedules are strictly
Germans value correctness and exactness in everything they do; they hate to
make mistakes. “Doing things right” is the core value of this society (Hall & Hall,
1990). In relation to their value of precision, Tominaga (1997, as cited in Schneider &
66
Littrell, 2003) concluded that the German exactness is found not only in engineering,
but also in the administration (bureaucracy) in the state, governmental apparatus, and
even in the firms. Germans emphasise precision and promptness; they believe that the
future result depends on the current analysis therefore they are conscious of planning
and using time efficiently, to avoid the possible uncertainty in the future. They also
differentiate work time and leisure time, but in both cases, they believe that time
should be used rationally and efficiently (Gannon, 2004). They have a desire to
As a result, flexibility and spontaneity are not highly valued in this culture. In
compartmentalise space by covering themselves from other people with a solid wall
and doors to discourage interruptions and ensure privacy (Hall & Hall, 1990).
peoples. Arriving late may mean a delay for only two minutes (Lewis, 2006) but it is
taken as a sign of inefficiency and disinterest (Flamini, 1997). The schedules and
appointments are kept promptly; from the schedule of public transportation to the
meetings, all are strictly observed (Hall & Hall, 1990). As McCarthy (2005) noted,
German supervisors have “open door” policies at the precise time and day of the week
when the office doors open. They distinguish clearly the time when they work (on
duty) from the personal time. Interestingly, staying late at the office is not necessarily
taken as a good behaviour in this culture; it may indicate that the individual is
1997). Germans are recognised as a highly educated society with the existence of a
complex and formal education system (as shown in Figure 4). This orderly education
system determines Germans life career at an early stage. In this sense, from the early
age, Germans are used to choose and plan their “future career.” Gannon (2004)
believes that German educational system reflects the German cultural values of
orderliness and the uniformity of quality. Because the education is free for Germans
from kindergarten to the university, the typical Germans are highly standardised
educated, therefore they form a well-qualified work force and the working
Grundschule
(elementary school)
Abitur (exam)
Berufsausbildung
(apprenticeship
Universität or System)
Fachhochschule
(university or
College) Facharbeiterbrief
(certificate)
Note. The data are adapted from “The global etiquette guide to Europe: Everything
you need to know for business and travel success,” by D.A. Foster, 2000, New York:
J. Wiley & Sons.
68
An effective apprenticeship system exists both on the shop floor and in the
office. At the end of this training, the Germans will receive a certificate, the
Germans are analytic and conceptual in their information process. Thus, the
professional criteria (such as technical skills and experience) are the most important
educational system that takes a long time to finish, the Germans do not freely share
knowledge and information is the symbol of status and power according to this
culture.
critical to team process. Germans believe that following the procedure is the most
effective way of accomplishing task in a group (Foster, 2000). Therefore, there will be
many rules, norms, procedures, and roles established in a group in order to maintain
exactness; all concerns must be taken care of in the process. Their decision making
necessary to deal with certain kinds of issues are often absent in German business
69
(Hall & Hall, 1990), because of their compartmentalisation and their tendency to
avoid the risk and uncertainty. Hall and Hall (1990) believe that this behaviour is also
due to the inflexibility of their leaders, because the decision makers are usually the
business leaders with their “top-down” decision making (Lincoln et al., 1995).
Moreover, German hierarchical structure must be followed and key people must be
Germans do not share information freely, except with their own particular
work group, because they consider knowledge as power (Hall & Hall, 1990). In this
sense, German supervisors are expected to solve their own departmental issues
independently. Intellectual power is the highest rank in German society among other
value titles, but compared to the Japanese, German ranks are fewer and are less rigid
(Lincoln et al., 1995). In this culture, material possessions, social position, and
automobiles, and handsome homes” (Hall & Hall, 1990, p. 42). A corner office space
approves major decisions, sets the strategies for the organisation, and appoints and
dismisses the Vorstand. The management board conducts day-to-day business of the
organisation (Hall & Hall, 1990). Foster (2000) gives the example of the hierarchy of
Vorsitzender chairman/president
Vorstandes
background. They consider their technical expertise as the most important basis of
their authority. In other words, German managers gain authority and respect on the
basis of technical expertise (their professional status) (Schneider & Littrell, 2003). It
precise, and often blunt directions. It is reflected on the use of language that is
characterised by “verboten, nicht erlaubt, and sie müssen (forbidden, not allowed, and
you must)” (Varner & Beamer, 2005, p. 213). They also monitor subordinates closely
for ensuring that the subordinates accomplish task properly according to the
established procedures. Thus, Lincoln et al. (1995) agree that the top-down (command
German is considered a Low-context culture (Hall & Hall, 1990); they value
openness and directness communication style and they like using examples. The word
71
zum beispiel (‘for example’) is frequently used by Germans for giving a clear
description (Hall & Hall, 1990). They also prefer facts, factual texts, figures, charts,
and projections for future events, because Germans are very linear thinkers (Foster,
2000). The advertising of products and services are full with facts and figures, rather
command and control in this society. Being orderly and logical in communication are
essential in a business interaction. In business across cultures, they also expect the
foreign business counterparts to give all the information in detail, because of their
is natural to speak to the point and confront others for the sake of truth, productivity,
and efficiency (Goldman, 1994). Thus, “Germans are too argumentative” is one of the
directly and clearly straight away. Hall and Hall (1990) give an illustration about the
supervisor:
I have many German employees and I must make a periodic evaluation of their
performance. Then I must meet with each employee and discuss his evaluation.
Sometimes the German will say, “Why did you give me only an average rating?” I
72
tell him, “You come in late and you are not working hard.” He will say, “But why
behaviour makes them uncomfortable. They are concerned about enforcing proper
behaviour in each other and consistently correct each other and even correct strangers
(Hall & Hall, 1990). In relation to giving a positive feedback in business, German
supervisors seldom compliment their subordinate for accomplishing the task. On the
other way, criticism is often given as a way for improvement in this culture.
each word to communicate a specific and explicit meaning. There are three types of
German language: Low German (Plattdeutsch: the dialect, spoken in the north),
Swabian or Bavarian: the dialect, spoke in the south, and High German
(Hochdeutsch: the standard German) (Varner & Beamer, 2005). The latter is generally
dialects in public and media texts, such as advertising and television (Kelly-Holmes,
2002).
Germans tend to use a direct and explicit mode of verbal communication; they
lengthy and detailed, because they value the explicitness and the clarity of the
messages without leaving any ambiguity. Gannon (2004) has observed that Germans
tend to use a deductive way of thinking that relies on their past history and theory. In
73
order to explain something, they usually begin with the description and logical
analysis of the background/history related to the topic. This background will provide
foundation for the explanation of current situation and future prediction related to the
topic.
and facial expression in interacting with foreigners. The most common one is
handshake. German handshake is done quickly and firmly with a few quick shakes
between two men, but not as strongly between men and women or two women
such as Guten Tag. Germans do not smile when introduced. They save their smiles for
friends and family (Gesteland, 2005). Therefore, smiling and other nonverbal
stranger. However, they maintain eye contact in the conversation to show their
communication because they focus on the content of the information more than the
Low-context culture.
differences between Gespräch (casual talk) and Besprechung (the more formal
that there is always logically and philosophically truth. It is a common mode of social
issues, and other serious topics. These subjects refer to a high level of education,
which is valued high by traditional Germans. Other topics include current events, the
74
arts, sports (especially football), music, and philosophy (Foster, 2000). Therefore,
having a discussion about those subjects with Germans may develop deeper
relationships. On the other hand, the topics that should be avoided include personal
financial discussions, private family matters, personal background, World War II, and
the like (Foster, 2000). In addition, besprechung is crucial in a society in which the
(Friday, 2003). In oral communication, Germans do not immediately get the point
because in their language, the verb often comes at the end of the sentence. Besides,
than face to face communication therefore some foreigners agree that Germans
Formality
business are expected to display good manners, especially those who are educated.
First naming is considered taboo and makes Germans uncomfortable in the early stage
of relationship (Hall & Hall, 1990). It takes time before the foreigners may address
Germans with their first names, otherwise they will perceive foreigners as rude. Like
the Japanese, Germans address others with their family names, usually starting with
the honorific terms (Lincoln et al., 1995), for example the professor is formally
addressed as “Herr Professor Doktor” for male followed by his last name or “Frau
Professor Doktor” for female (Gesteland, 2005). Hall and Hall (1990) note that only
within those who have a close relationship, they may tolerate the formal rules of this
behaviour. This includes family members, friends, and coworkers. In addition, there
are two forms of addressing you: the formal sie and the familiar du (Hall & Hall,
75
1990). Sie is used in almost all situations, especially in interaction with any new
acquaintances when first met on a neutral public occasion. It is also used for
addressing subordinates, including the drivers and the doormen. Du is used only
within family members and close friends (Hall & Hall, 1990). With regard to the age
of the speakers, sie form is used among the speakers over 30 years of age, while du
Like the Japanese, Germans make friendships that are deep and lasting.
However, they are not open to strangers for casual relationships, because they are
serious and dislike small talk (Hall & Hall, 1990). They also rarely socialise outside
the workplace (Trompenaars & Hampden-Turner, 1998). In this sense, there is less
outside workplace is desirable, but only 18 percent of them consider this as a usual
practice. Lincoln et al. (1995) agree this culture is tight with many rules and norms,
dense, and in some extent closed cultural and social system that resists foreigners.
Therefore, according to some foreigners, the “Germans are too blunt” (Lincoln et al.,
1995). However, the bluntness is value high in this culture. Germans are likely to
move less often (less mobility) and develop friendships slowly, because they have a
strong sense of history, tradition, family, and life-long friendships (Friday, 2003). As
a result, the family reputation is still considered as part of one’s own identity, which
Hofstede’s (2001) study concluded that German culture scores moderately high in
Germans seldom invite anyone who is not a close friend to their home. They maintain
the formal rules of behaviour that give one another distance and privacy. An invitation
to visit a German home may indicate that Germans want to explore the possibility of
becoming closer friends. The German executives prefer to work in a private office
with solid doors and soundproof walls. As at their home, the door is also a protective
barrier, which is usually thick and heavy. Germans prefer to keep the doors closed.
This reflects an assumption that they responsible for their own department, without
Chapter 5
specific shared goals. From the possible variety of roles of team leaders as discussed
in chapter 2, this project focuses on two key communication roles in team working:
(a) task communication (directing, coaching, giving feedback); and (b) relational
management) (Barker et al., 2001; Kotter, 2001; Patton & Downs, 2003; Shockley-
Zalabak, 2006).
Based on the integrated concept above and the previous chapter’s discussion
about cultural dimensions of the Japanese and German (the summary as shown in
Table 5), this chapter will investigate the effects of culture on team leaders’
factors in the process of interaction and the outcomes; however, this project focuses
largely on the Japanese and German team leaders’ communication behaviour with
regard to their nationality and citizenship, because this discussion will provide an
Table 5
The Cultural Dimensions of Japanese and German
Note. The data are adapted from “Beyond culture,” by E. T. Hall, 1976, New York:
Anchor Press/Doubleday; “Culture's consequences International differences in work-
related values,” by G. Hofstede, 1984, Newbury Park, Sage; “Riding the waves of
culture: Understanding cultural diversity in business,” by A. Trompenaars, 1993,
London: Brealey; “Culture, leadership, and organizations: The GLOBE study of 62
societies,” by R. J. House, P. J. Hanges, M. Javidan, P. W. Dorfman, & V. Gupta,
2004, Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Task Communication
Directing
that Japanese team leaders will prepare a long-term plan carefully with many details,
As considered high Uncertainty Avoidance culture, Japanese team leaders take a long
time for thinking and the decision making process because they will ensure that every
aspect has taken into consideration for making a best decision that affect the team
process and performance. They will also establish team norms and rules for
Coaching
to-face meetings for interaction with team members, because they value nonverbal
Japanese team members are usually perceived as having different (lower) status from
team leaders. There is a rigid hierarchical structure with well-defined roles for every
team member. In this sense, they are perceived as having passive roles; they expect
the leaders to give detail instructions and directions to team members. The team
members are unlikely to contradict and argue their team leaders, because they believe
that their team leader have more power and a higher status than them. An
Therefore, Japanese team leaders will use formal a chain of command (top-down
communication). Hofstede (2003) agrees that the ideal team leader of this culture acts
as a good father, in team members’ point of view. The high Uncertainty Avoidance
element indicates that Japanese team leaders will also establish a variety of rules,
procedures, and even punishments for those who break the rules in teamwork.
leaders and team members, in terms of coaching the Japanese team leaders will give
clear instructions, suggestions, and advice related to task, and even those related to the
80
team members’ personal issues. They do not distinguish the task-related from
Table 6
Note.
ASC = Ascription ACV = Achievement
COL = Collectivist IDV = Individualist
H-C = High-context L-C = Low-context
H-PD = High Power Distance L-PD = Low Power Distance
H-UA = High Uncertainty Avoidance M-UA = Moderate Uncertainty Avoidance
M-FO = Moderate Future Orientation
M-PO = Moderate Performance Orientation
81
Giving Feedback
harmony. They identify themselves as part of the group. They will avoid giving
explicit and critical negative individual feedback directly to team members, because it
threatening the harmony, status, and other person’s “face” (kao). As a High-context
communication culture, Japanese team leaders will use an indirect and implicit mode
will consider other factors than merely individual performance, such as age,
Beyond that, Japanese actually have their own way to communicate feedback
time” after working hours is the appropriate time for a direct and explicit
communication, including giving feedback between team leaders and team members,
without any fear of disciplinary acts (Hall & Hall, 1987; Rhody & Tang, 1995). This
is a “kata” for the Japanese in giving the appropriate feedback. In this sense, it can be
predicted that the Japanese team leaders will encourage the team members to go
socialising after working hours, because this informal activity gives a positive impact
Relational Communication
(Hall & Hall, 1987). Information is shared quickly by every individual in a team,
including the team leader, because “team-ness” is more important than “individual-
communication to maintain team harmony. They focus on the total individual and
view each of them as a person rather than an employee. Perhaps, that is the reason that
(related to the person rather than task), rather than coaching (related to the task)
subordinates, because of their long-term relationships and their culture (Tang et al.,
2000). In this sense, they are relationship-focused rather than task-focused leaders
maintaining harmonious relationship in a team and for supporting the team process to
relationship is developed within a team. The example of this application from the
Listening
collaborate to achieve group consensus and harmony (Hall & Hall, 1987). As the
as a family. As a result, Japanese team leaders are likely to listen to team members’
issues and concerns, both work-related and personal-related issues. Because the
Listening includes silence; knowing the complete messages or information from the
speakers, before the listeners give feedback about the messages have been sent.
Table 7
Note.
ASC = Ascription ACV = Achievement
COL = Collectivist IDV = Individualist
H-C = High-context L-C = Low-context
H-PD = High Power Distance L-PD = Low Power Distance
H-UA = High Uncertainty Avoidance M-UA = Moderate Uncertainty Avoidance
L-A = Low Assertiveness H-A = High Assertiveness
M-FO = Moderate Future Orientation
M-PO = Moderate Performance Orientation
84
sign of respect and trustworthiness, just as stated in the earlier chapter that “those who
know do not speak; those who speak do not know” (Gannon, 2004). The emphasis on
the group or the majority opinion is in line with the preferences of the Japanese to
work in groups, not alone. The Japanese team leaders are likely to be open to
questions from team members, because the team leaders perceive themselves as “good
father” for team members. They are responsible for the success of team process, both
individually and collectively. This is also likely to be the impact of amae in the
relationship between team leaders and team members therefore team leaders hold a
issues.
Conflict Management
members. There are numerous approaches for understanding conflict handling style,
management, which consists of five styles: (a) competing: high in assertiveness and
predicted that the Japanese team leaders will perceive conflict as threatening team
harmony and relationship. Subsequently, this will affect team performance, because
85
team relationship is crucial for a team work. As a low Assertive culture, it can be
predicted that the Japanese team leaders do not predominate over others, because
group goal is more important than individual goal. In this sense, conflict with team
members is likely to be avoided by the Japanese team leaders. Instead, they will use
more indirect and accommodating approaches for managing conflict in this culture, so
maintain relationships.
In dealing with conflict, the Japanese team leader is likely to discuss an issue
with a team member privately. By doing so, they avoid the other team members to
observe the conflict interaction may occur. Japanese team leader will also encourage
the team members to socialise after working hours, so that the team members may
have an opportunity to deal with certain issues in a more direct way. This informal
meeting provides the way for both Japanese team leaders and team members to
informally. This style of managing conflict of the Japanese team leaders indicates the
desire to always maintain harmony and relationship in a team process, because the
success or the failure of the team is also determined by the individual relationship in a
team. Moreover, the Japanese team leaders may use third party/mediator to manage
Task Communication
Directing
the German team leaders will set goals and directions carefully for a long-term plan to
86
(ordnung), and promptness, they tend to set a very detailed plan with a clear
timeframe and well-defined expectations. As Littrell & Valentin (2005) in their study
leaders tend to clarify the message explicitly. Order is achievable when there are
effective rules, regulations, and procedures, particularly in this culture. Therefore, the
German team leaders will define and develop rules and procedures in detail. They are
likely to enforce rules and monitor teamwork to ensure that their team will generate
positive results. Also, they will not tolerate the team members who break the team
This is also in line with the expectation of German workers. In the same study
as above, Littrell and Valentin (2005) concluded that German workers prefer to work
alone, after a considerable planning with the manager, but little managerial
direction/guidance after the plan has been made. This finding is consistent with
German team leaders tend to focus on delivering personalised messages. For example
there will be personalised instructions, targets, and expectations for each individual in
a team.
in this culture. In this sense, team leaders may encourage the participation from their
Coaching
procedures, and instructions (the summary in Table 6). This is in line with the
German team leader will act as a coach. Team leaders will focus more on task-related
German team leaders are likely to give suggestions and instructions towards achieving
team goals and increasing team productivity; they are unlikely to give advice to team
basis for people in the top position, the German team leaders will transfer their
knowledge explicitly to their members (Schneider & Littrell, 2003). In terms of giving
task-related instructions, this is the “telling” style of typical German team leaders.
Team leaders from this culture will explicitly give the detail instructions about what
reflects the leader’s orientation and constant effort of improvement. German team
leaders have highly ambitious goals and high expectations for their team members.
Giving Feedback
In terms of giving feedback, German team leaders will use constructive and
feedback is seen as a natural and an essential way to improve performance. They will
this sense, it can be predicted that German team leaders will give a written feedback
explicitly with a long list of the reasons that leading into certain conclusion of
German team leaders seldom give compliments to team members who have done a
great job, because they assume that every individual will perform well; performing
German team leaders will also provide the opportunity for team members to
give feedback to team leaders’ performance. This is possible in a low Power Distance
culture, where team leaders and team members consider each other as equal, with
is supported by Hall and Hall (1990) by stating “Germans will correct foreigners’
behaviour, but they are equally concerned about enforcing proper behaviour on each
other and constantly correct each other, even strangers, in public” (Hall & Hall, 1990,
p. 52). This is also true from the perspective of German team members; they expect to
practices from those predictions above. McCarthy (2005) concluded that 39 percent of
practice. This finding indicates the desire of German leaders to seek feedback from
Relational Communication
McCarthy (2005) noted, German has “open door” policies at the precise time and day
of the week when the leaders’ doors open. They distinguish clearly the time when
they work (on duty) from their personal time. In those “open door” times, the German
In this sense, German team leaders are unlikely to be easily approachable at any time.
practice (McCarthy, 2005). This practice highlights the crucial task of German team
important entity than the team, therefore team members in this culture are likely to
work independently as long as each individual fulfils his or her role in a team. By
analysing this kind of working interaction, it can be predicted that each individual do
German team leaders are unlikely to share all the information they have with team
and status in this society, so the information should not be shared freely. In a team,
90
this kind of communication behaviour affects the team process and team performance
in a negative way. Unlike the individual work, the team work relies on
team goals.
Listening
team leaders are likely to argue, contradict, and questioning each other (speaker-
speaker and the listener to seek a clear perception about the topic in a communication
interaction. This is true from the view that German is a moderate-high Uncertainty
ambiguity in delivering and receiving information; they will clarify, even argue each
point of message directly after the speaker communicated it. By doing so, they engage
Conflict Management
most important entity. Ting-Toomey and Oetzel (2001) suggest that individualism in
display of personal emotions, and the importance of personal accountability for any
conflict issue/mistake. In relation to that, Hall and Hall (1990) agree that Germans
German team leaders tend to use a confrontational and competing style as a mirror of
truth, productivity, and efficiency (Goldman, 1994). Oetzel et al. (2003) also agree
that members of individualist, low power distance cultures have a greater self-face
concern and have lesser other- and mutual-face concerns. In this sense, German team
leaders are unlikely to use avoiding and integrating style of conflict management.
Because German is a low Power Distance culture, German team leaders consider
themselves as having equal status with team members. Therefore, team members may
Table 6 and 7). The concept of High-Low-context communication from Hall (1976)
still holds a considerable impact on the differences between the Japanese and German
analysis of each culture individually. This “black and white” prediction of the
the real interaction depending on some contingency and situational factors. From
analysing this data, the next section investigates the effective team leadership
considered crucial to the team process and team outcomes. This project focuses on the
two key communication roles of team leaders in team working: (a) task
management) (Barker et al., 2001; Kotter, 2001; Patton & Downs, 2003; Shockley-
using cultural variability theories, this section discusses the propositions of effective
Task Communication
roles and expectations for each team member to follow. In this sense, team leader
should set and communicate a clear direction and team goal strategically for directing
communicating planning in terms of directing team members. On the other hand, the
multicultural team setting, because there is a less defined role for each team member,
as Japanese culture emphasises the group, not the individual. In a multicultural team,
each team member may have his or her own interpretation of doing a task according
to his or her cultural values. Therefore this kind of team requires well-defined team
communication are likely to be more effective in a multicultural team as they are task-
communication, because the team members may come from different culture, with
their diverse (national) cultures, subcultures and personality. A team leader should
German team leaders in providing clear instruction and direction is also effective for
multicultural team. For example team members from Low-context cultures are more
comfortable with direct feedback from their team leaders compared to those from
High-context cultures. Nor are the characteristics of Japanese or German team leaders
alone effective for giving feedback in a multicultural team. It is likely that the
combination style of both communication behaviours is the best suggestion for giving
They should understand the cultural background of each team member, so that
Relational Communication
Japanese team leader is an ideal prototype of team leaders across cultures. Open
cohesiveness affects team process and team outcomes. The role of communication
94
different members. It is the task of team leader to encourage formal and informal
communication within a team. As stated earlier in this chapter, Japanese team leaders
are both task- and people-oriented leaders, so that they emphasise both on task
(associated with maintaining team stability and social process) (as shown in Table 8).
It is the challenge for the team leaders to accommodate to all team members’ cultural
background and characteristics. In this sense, the team leaders should focus on both
collaboration in teams.
The team leaders as good listeners are needed in a team whose members are
different culturally. The team leaders should be a person for seeking clarification
about task in a team. Nor are the characteristics of the Japanese team leaders or
German team leaders alone effective in a multicultural team. The ideal team leader of
multicultural teams is the one who possesses the listening skill of both the Japanese
and German team leaders’ communication pattern. The team leaders should possess
good listening skill like Japanese team leaders as well as the desire for seeking
both of these bi-polar communication patterns, the team leaders may adjust their
their team members. For leading a team with culturally different team members, the
characterised by avoiding style, emphasising harmony and focusing on the others and
in every team regardless the cultural origin of their members, because togetherness,
harmony, and good relationship are the crucial ingredients for every team to perform.
On the other hand, the characteristics of German team leaders in conflict management
are unlikely to be effective because this culture emphasises the self, the individual
Table 8
This project’s findings confirm the result of the GLOBE study related to the
countries for the purpose of examining the interrelationships between societal culture,
uncover the leadership behaviours that are universally accepted and effective across
cultures (House et al., 2004). This study concluded a universal preference for
leadership dimension that reflects the ability to inspire, to motivate, and to expect
high performance outcomes from others on the basis of firmly held core values”
Table 9 presents the three top preferences for “ideal” leadership style of the
Table 9
Note. The data are adapted from “Culture, leadership, and organizations: The
GLOBE study of 62 societies,” by R. J. House, P. J. Hanges, M. Javidan, P. W.
Dorfman, & V. Gupta, 2004, Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
It can be seen that the distinct leadership behaviour preference for the Japanese is a
common purpose or goal among team members” (Dorfman et al., 2004, p. 675).
According to this definition, it is likely that the ideal Japanese team leaders have the
preferences, rather than Team-Oriented (as shown in Table 9). The GLOBE study
al., 2004, p. 675). In this sense, this Participative style corresponds to the German
team leaders’ communication with their democratic style coaching (as shown in Table
6). Furthermore, this Participative style is likely to be a common situation in the low
consider both task and relational communication in leading a team. The team leaders
need to understand the bi-polar categorisations of cultures so that they may adjust
from the combination of Japanese and German team leaders’ communication acts.
Although there are many cultural dimensions that affect communication behaviours of
the Japanese and German team leaders, it is likely that there are 3 major cultural
one should be aware of the existence of individual variations that may cause different
that distinguish one culture from another. The impacts of cultural values also
Considering all the analyses above, this project proposes a conceptual model of team
CULTURE A
Team leader
A
Team member Team member
A COMMUNICATION
A or B / AB B
Subcultures: Subcultures:
Age, education, Age, education,
gender, personality gender, personality
This model describes the communication process between team leaders and team
members in an intercultural setting. The (national) culture of team leader affects his or
Firstly, in a team whose members come from the same culture as their leader,
arrow between team leader from culture A and team member from culture A as shown
culturally different from their team leader, the team leader communication acts should
consider the majority of the (national) culture of a team (see culture A and culture B
in Figure 5). Specifically, the team leaders should understand their own and the other
team member’s culture. “They need to be able to switch from behavior they use in
their own culture to the behavior that will be most appropriate for another culture”
(Varner & Beamer, 2005, p. 272). Therefore many scholars suggest that (global)
to the context (Gregersen, Morrison, & Black, 1998; Kedia & Mukherji, 1999;
Stanek, 2000). In this scenario, it can be predicted that one culture will give away to
likely to effectively work in two cultures that have a big cultural distance, such as
example, in a team that has a Japanese team leader with the German team members, it
can be predicted that either one of those cultures will predominate over other in giving
the impact to team leadership communication style (as shown in Table 10). The
Japanese team leader may stick with his or her Japanese style of communication
because a particular team leader has a big power to influence German team members.
100
In this case, the German team members will adjust their style of communication when
communicating with this leader, because of his or her power. On the other hand, the
Japanese team leader may accommodate the influence of German culture from their
team members because of the strong influence from the majority of individual’s
culture in a team.
Thirdly, the effort becomes more complex in a situation where a team consists
of culturally different team members and team leader (as shown in Table 10). There is
no one culture that has “power” to take over the others. It can be predicted that every
culture will restrain itself of being too dominant in a team. However, it is likely that
the team leader will adjust his or her communication behaviour to the organisational
culture or/and professional culture as their first reference. Stated differently, the
Table 10
shown in Table 10). Varner & Beamer (2005) recognise this as a transactional culture,
2, in a study of multinational teams Earley and Gardner (2005) label this as a hybrid
culture. “The context of the interaction becomes more important for molding actions
than the individuals’ cultural backgrounds (Varner & Beamer, 2005, p. 4). In this
sense, the transactional culture only temporarily occurs in a team, when people
leaders are likely to be able to communicate competently across cultures. In doing so,
there are several notes that need to bear in mind: (a) culture (and team leadership) is
contingent and situational, so that the cultural dimensions and their prediction as
discussed earlier may not apply to all situations; (b) the individual variation exists and
contributes to the different behaviours from the prediction; and (c) the contribution of
behaviours.
102
Chapter 6
Conclusion
team is a group of individuals who have complementary skills and commitment, and
work interdependently for a certain period of time to achieve a common goal. The
role of team leadership is crucial in team process and team outcomes. Specifically,
communication.
In this sense, culture dictates attitudes and behaviours of a society. This project
focuses on the analysis of national culture. The cultural dimensions developed by Hall
(1976), Hofstede (1984), Trompenaars (1993), and the GLOBE study (2004) have
been presented in Chapter 3. Although these concepts cannot be generalised into all
in intercultural communication.
Cultural values not only affect the attitudes, but also the communication
behaviours of the Japanese and Germans. This cultural description attempts to give
explanations for the “why” people behave on certain way. The Japanese and the
leadership. It is suggested that team leadership conducts those two functions: task-
positive team outcomes. In this sense, the effective team leadership communication
German team leader communication behaviours. This finding also confirms the latest
“global” study of GLOBE. This project’s finding correlates positively with the
across cultures was developed. This conceptual model illustrates team leadership
members are culturally different from their team leader (for example team leader from
A culture, team members from B culture, or the other way), the reference of team
culture team members) each individual culture is less likely to be a single predictor of
team leader communication acts, because there is no one culture that has “power” to
take over the others. It can be predicted that every culture will restrain itself of being
104
too dominant in a team. Instead, team leader is likely to refer to organisational culture
At the conclusion of this study, the answers to the research questions are as
follows. Firstly, culture is the reference of the values, attitudes and behaviours of
the German culture. It is obvious that the existing cultural dimensions developed by
culture. However, the effort of the GLOBE study is valuable to the further
members are culturally different from the leader. In other words, it is likely that
maximum two different cultures, especially two “big distance” cultures such as
individualist and collectivist, high- and low-Power Distance, to name a few. The
leaders are likely to be able to communicate competently across cultures. In doing so,
there are several cautions: (a) culture (and team leadership) is contingent and
situational, so that the cultural dimensions and their prediction as discussed earlier
may not apply to all situations; (b) the individual variation exists and contributes to
the different behaviours from the prediction; and (c) the contribution of organisational
Future Research
As the direction for a further empirical exploration, future research may aim to
Specifically, it focuses on Japanese team leader with German team members and
German team leader with Japanese team members. The research may include the
questions such as how does team leadership communication may vary in a team with
Japanese team leader and German team members (and the other way around)? How
effective is the team leadership communication in a team with the Japanese team
leader and German team members, compared to a team with the German team leader
and Japanese team members? To what extent, do subcultural factors affect team
this study tends to explore “why” team leader from a certain culture is able to behave
“this” way and leads to the effectiveness. It can be predicted that Japanese team leader
because the basic cultural values of Japanese are appropriate for teamwork. However,
this suggestion of a further research still generates the issue of measuring the
References
Learning.
Ashkanasy, N., Gupta, V., Mayfield, M. S., & Trevor-Roberts, E. (2004). Future
Bacon.
Barlett, C. A., & Ghoshal, S. (1998). Managing across borders: The transnational
Belote, J. (2001). About Kanji and other features of Japanese writing systems. part 1
http://www.d.umn.edu/~jbelote/japanwriting.html
Brennan, M., & Braswell, P. (2005). Developing and leading effective global teams.
Chief Learning Officer, 4 (3), 44-48. Retrieved May 27, 2006, from Business
Campion, M. A., Medsker, G. J., & Higgs, A. C. (1993). Relations between work
Carl, D., Gupta, V., & Javidan, M. (2004). Power distance. In R. J. House, P. J.
Chan, D. K. S., Gelfand, M. J., Triandis, H. C., & Tzeng, O. (1996). Tightness-
Erlbaum Associates.
Cohen, S. G., Lei, C., & Ledford Jr, G. E. (1997). A hierarchical construct of self-
Cohen, W. A. (2000). The new art of leader: Leading with integrity and honor.
Cohen, W. A. (2004). The art of strategist: 10 essential principles for leading your
CA: Sage.
109
Daft, R. L., & Lane, P. G. (2005). The leadership experience. (3rd ed.). Mason, Ohio:
Thomson/South-Western.
Dainton, M., & Zelley, E. D. (2005). Applying communication theory for professional
DeSanctis, G., & Jiang, L. (2005). Communication and the learning effectiveness of
(Eds.), Managing multinational teams: Global perspectives (Vol. 18, pp. 97-
Dorfman, P. W., Hanges, P. J., & Brodbeck, F. C. (2004). Leadership and cultural
Earley, P. C., & Gardner, H. K. (2005). Internal dynamics and cultural intelligence in
customs & etiquette. San Raphael, CA: World Trade Press. Retrieved May 14,
Foster, D. A. (2000). The global etiquette guide to Europe: Everything you need to
know for business and travel success. New York: J. Wiley & Sons.
Wadsworth/Thomson Learning.
28 nations, clusters of nations, and continents. (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage.
Quarterly, 46 (2), 274-303. Retrieved March 23, 2006, from Business Source
Premier database.
http://www.thunderbird.edu/wwwfiles/ms/globe/index.htm
Govindarajan, V., & Gupta, A. K. (2001). Building an effective global business team.
MIT Sloan Management Review, 42 (4), 63-71. Retrieved February 13, 2006,
Gregersen, H. B., Morrison, A. J., & Black, J. S. (1998). Developing leaders for the
McGraw-Hill.
intercultural communication (2nd ed., pp. 25-50). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Gudykunst, W. B., Lee, C. M., Nishida, T., & Ogawa, N. (2005). Theorizing about
CA: Sage.
Hall, E. T., & Hall, M. R. (1987). Hidden differences: Doing business with the
Hall, E. T., & Hall, M. R. (1990). Understanding cultural differences. Yarmouth, ME:
Intercultural Press.
Higgs, M., Plewnia, U., & Ploch, J. (2005). Influence of team composition and task
http://www.emeraldinsight.com/10.1108/13527590510635134
institutions, and organizations across nations. (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage.
Honna, N., & Hoffer, B. (Eds.). (1989). An English dictionary of Japanese ways of
McCauley & E. Van Velsor (Eds.), The Center for Creative Leadership
Jossey-Bass.
House, R. J., Hanges, P. J., Javidan, M., Dorfman, P. W., & Gupta, V. (Eds.). (2004).
Huszczo, G. E. (2004). Tools for team leadership: Delivering the X-factor in team
Imhof, M. (2003). The social construction of the listener: Listening behavior across
Reports, 20 (4), 357-366. Retrieved April 15, 2006, from Communication &
Javidan, M., & House, R. J. (2001). Cultural acumen for the global manager: Lessons
Joshi, A., & Lazarova, M. (2005). Do "global" teams need "global" leaders?
Katzenbach, J. R., & Smith, D. K. (1993). The wisdom of teams: Creating the high-
Katzenbach, J. R., & Smith, D. K. (2005). The Discipline of Teams. (Cover story).
Harvard Business Review, 83 (7/8), 162-171. Retrieved March 14, 2006, from
Kedia, B. L., & Mukherji, A. (1999). Global managers: Developing a mindset for
Arnold.
28 (3), 48-66. Retrieved March 20, 2006, from Business Source Premier
database.
Kirkman, B. L., & Shapiro, D. L. (2005). The impact of cultural value diversity on
Kotter, J. P. (2001). What leaders really do. Harvard Business Review, 79 (11), 85-96.
Lewis, R. D. (2006). When cultures collide: Leading across cultures. (3rd ed.).
(3), 417. Retrieved March 29, 2006, from Business Source Premier database.
http://www.emeraldinsight.com/10.1108/02621710510598445
Lorriman, J., & Kenjo, T. (1994). Japan's winning margins management, training,
493.
Mai, R. P., & Akerson, A. (2003). The leader as communicator: Strategies and tactics
to build loyalty, focus effort, and spark creativity. New York: AMACOM
Martin, A. (2005). The changing nature of leadership: A CCL research report. The
http://www.ccl.org/leadership/pdf/research/NatureLeadership.pdf
from http://www.emeraldinsight.com/10.1108/03090590510591094
McCauley, C. D., & Van Velsor, E. (2004). Introduction: Our view of leadership
Learning.
www.mediacom.keio.ac.jp/publication/pdf2003/review25/7.pdf
http://www.emeraldinsight.com/10.1108/13527590410545036
Oetzel, J., Ting-Toomey, S., Chew-Sanchez, M. I., Harris, R., Wilcox, R., & Stumpf,
S. (2003). Face and facework in conflicts with parents and siblings: A cross-
Hill Irwin.
Rees, F. (2001). How to lead work teams: Facilitation skills. (2nd ed.). San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass/Pfeiffer.
Rhody, J. D., & Tang, T. L.-P. (1995). Learning from Japanese transplants and
Rost, J. C. (1991). Leadership for the twenty-first century. New York: Praeger.
119
Salas, E., Dickinson, T. L., Converse, S., & Tannenbaum, S. I. (1992). Toward an
(Eds.), Teams: Their training and performance (pp. 3-29). Norwood, NJ:
Ablex.
Salas, E., Stagl, K. C., & Burke, C. S. (2004). 25 years of team effectiveness in
psychology (Vol. 19, pp. 47-91). New York: John Wiley & Sons.
Salk, J. E., & Brannen, M. Y. (2000). National culture, networks, and individual
Journal, 43 (2), 191-202. Retrieved April 15, 2006, from Business Source
Complete database.
Wadsworth/Thomson Learning.
Schneider, J., & Littrell, R. F. (2003). Leadership preferences of German and English
http://www.emeraldinsight.com/10.1108/02621710310459694
database.
120
Bacon.
Siira, K., Rogan, R. G., & Hall, J. A. (2004). "A spoken word is an arrow shot": A
Retrieved January 25, 2006, from Communication & Mass Media Complete
database.
Smith, H. W., & Nomi, T. (2000). Is Amae the key to understanding Japanese
http://www.sociology.org/content/vol005.001/smith-nomi.html
Smith, P. B., & Bond, M. H. (1999). Social psychology across cultures. Boston: Allyn
& Bacon.
Steckler, N., & Fondas, N. (1995). Building team leader effectiveness: A diagnostic
Swierczek, F. W., & Onishi, J. (2003). Culture and conflict: Japanese managers and
http://www.emeraldinsight.com/10.1108/02683940010373383
Ting-Toomey, S., & Oetzel, J. G. (2002). Cross-cultural face concerns and conflict
Sage.
Personality, 69 (6), 907-924. Retrieved May 16, 2006, from Academic Search
Premier database.
Wadsworth/Thomson Learning.
Complete database.
Trompenaars, A., & Hampden-Turner, C. (1998). Riding the waves of culture. (2nd
Capstone.
Russian, Polish, German, and Japanese. New York: Oxford University Press.
Williams, H. (1996). The essence of managing groups and teams. London; New York:
Prentice Hall.
Zaccaro, S. J., & Klimoski, R. (2002). Special issue introduction: The interface of
13. Retrieved April 10, 2006, from Business Source Complete database.
Zaccaro, S. J., Rittman, A. L., & Marks, M. A. (2001). Team leadership. The
Leadership Quarterly, 12, 451-483. Retrieved April 26, 2006, from Business